Talk:Draft step by step guide to sustainability
Discussion continued from Talk:Draft main page ideas On the change thing, only problem again is if you're arguing this has to be in step one. I don't see any problem with explaining all this (about change) in step 2 plus. On the economics thing (huge intake of breath!) to me it's absolutely essential and a crucial part of widespread consensus. I'm not saying the terminology is perfect, just the consensus which I see behind the thing better explained is absolutely essential. We're building bridges and all those people who are working on this kind of stuff around the world, as well as in the UK are absolutely essential allies. However strongly this can be put just imagine I've put it that way, so hope we'll be able to agree to differ on this! Philralph 16:22, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :1) As I said, I'd like to give a sense of movement in whatever form of words appears as the top-of-page summary because I'd like a reader to immediately see that this is not about ivory tower pondering of some idealised possible world but actual social change. :2) This is why, when I describe sustainability these days as I have on the Wake Up Nottingham front page, I aim for very simple language. "People are healthy and happy": we all understand that and can sign up to it. "Economic well-being": we're not all sure what that is. What we mean, of course, is something that leads to people being healthy and happy. For myself I think, well, why not just say that? We certainly don't mean "economics is doing very nicely thank you". :Sure, you then go on to ask how we achieve this, and look at how people can get good access to resources, and that leads on to systems of resource exchange, and there are your economic tools of SD. But we haven't gone there because we think GDP is a noble beast that must be preserved. In fact, we're very much against the conventional wisdom that expends people to serve abstract economic entities. :So that's why I'm slightly wary about the way economics is introduced in a very short statement of what we're about rather than a longer treatment of what it really means and how to go about it. Tim Gray 16:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) :Hmm, I'm more persuaded that it'd be good to get other heads in here, as some of this stuff is just differences of viewpoint. I'm not hugely invested in it - after all, I've done it the way that suits me on WUN and I've got a page about it on the Change Works site, so I've got my soapbox. I just want SCA to be the best it can. :In fact, I wouldn't quibble with the Forum for the Future quote you've put on the definitions page. Would have minor issues with the wording in me-as-sole-contributor projects, but for the wiki if you wanted to put a sentence or two plus that on the main page I think that'd do for now, and it might be good to put an intro on soonish. Let me try it on the Draft main page ideas and you can see what you think. Tim Gray 17:17, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)